Eugenic technology seems to me terribly undervalued, despite its invaluable roi for society. Some points: 1. All animal husbandry and agriculture is built on identical fundamental principles. The "cow", the "grape", these things did not exist in their present form without millennia of haphazard, unfocused selective breeding. Today we can make equivalent shifts in expressed traits within a mere generation or two, through various means. 2. Human society is also unconsciously rooted to this. It's undoubtable that men ten thousand years ago were a very different breed than any that exists today. Agriculture and the societies it supported invariably winnowed out men unsuitable for its purposes. Industrialization did much the same. Regional cultures and conceptual structures, to a lesser extent, also evolved man in tandem with man's own conceptual evolution. The "zeitgeist" of society is a meta-organism which adapts to changing circumstances in a manner no single biology ever could. 3. Northwestern Europe through unknown probability combined ideal geography with ideal human clay, and produced the most vaunted race to exist until the present day. At the same time, its very success has destroyed these environmental constraints which created itself, and all incentives now seemingly point towards devolution, a raisure of the lower elements of man. 4. The only factor which might arrest this decline is a seizure and control of our own circumstances, conscious movement away from negative selection. Why should man be the victim of the whims of circumstantial selection? If so much of what we are is innate, inborn, then why can't we begin to choose our own destinies? 5. Though this thread is titled "Practical Considerations", I'm not talking about mass appeal, about shouting down your relatives at Thanksgiving and tiktok edits. It is my belief that what matters most is "elite" adoption of ideals, and what can be more rational than this? Even now, the highest ranks of the greatest and wealthiest empire on the planet is constantly, consistently bleeding away capable and discerning men who can't help but see through the unreachable fantasy of egalitarianism. In light of such an inarguable truth and consequential benefits, evangelization is obviously the superior choice of action, and everything else will be produced as a byproduct. Even the Bolsheviks were surprisingly blue blooded. 6. In conclusion, I want only to convince you that eugenics is vital, instrumental even to any possible undertaking men like us would try. The champions of the old regime are often proletarian, and the revolutionary is often aristocratic. Che Guevara's patrilineal ancestors were Irish nobles with castles. Evangelize eugenics in whatever way you can, in the same way Communism often found its strongest traction in the courts of nobility and the halls of academia. Agreement with 3,000 junior analysts at JPMorgan matters more than the mobilization of all Nebraska for your cause (hyperbole btw). It may be that the technological circumstances of this age actually favor eugenic aims, given the faction responsible is sufficiently motivated and equipped.
>>4805 I'll add one more thing here: I mainly believe it is instrumental because of one major problem, which is that 90%+ of the population even in advanced, highly capable western nations has become simply outmoded in the same manner as horses or a Singer machine or chattel slavery. It may be possible to say that 99% of the planet's population is unnecessary. Of course, upon hearing these things, you may find a feeling of distate. I want to dissuade this - No, eugenics does not necessitate Hitlerian mounds of corpses! I believe it is entirely possible to enact ethical, considerate eugenic policy, peacefully phasing out the outdated populations. We can respect them for what they are, a once-necessary and charming-in-their-own-way artifact of a prior age, without giving in to weepy sentimentality and refusing to do what is logical and economical. We still have horses, don't we? Picture: "One of the last two remaining horse-drawn carts in Brooklyn, d. 1970s
Ask and you shall receive. Here are your practical considerations:
1. "Eugenics" is a worse than useless term. It's a hate-word used by the Left to smear anything that might help.
Eugenics in its primary 19th and early 20th-century meaning, when the term was popular and carried legitimacy, was almost entirely about REDUCING fertility. It was about preventing various groups from multiplying. This is absolutely not what is needed today, with the exception of subsaharan Africa.
In the West, our problem populations have low fertility anyway, again with one exception: Muslims in Europe, where the solution ofc is not eugenics but rather REMIGRATION, a term on the cusp of legitimacy that will carry us to victory. Even countries like Mexico and Turkey have below-replacement TFR today.
Now that we have discarded "eugenics"--this Victorian curio of a word, every use of which simply helps our enemies--we turn our attention to the present.
2. Fertility. The new problem is CATASTROPHICALLY LOW FERTILITY, especially among the productive and capable.
This is a very tough problem. Don't underestimate it; all glib solutions are easily disproven. Unlike other problems like mass migration, there is no "fix everything easily switch".
Survey the world:
- Fertility is low in Iran. A conservative theocracy does not solve the problem. - Fertility is even lower in Hungary. Paying people to have babies does not solve the problem. - Fertility is extinction-level in South Korea and Japan. Every lib "nudge" policy under the sun from parental leave to free childcare to gov't-sponsored dating apps do not solve the problem. Must be the terrible work culture! - Fertility is abysmal in major Anglo metros like SF, NY, and London where housing is expensive and impossible to build. Must be the housing!
So what about places like Greece and Italy, where housing is cheap and work is chill and the women are beautiful and the sun is out? TFR 1.2. Enjoy your retirement home.
Even Utah has below-replacement fertility today.
The one productive and capable population on Earth with (barely) positive birthrates are secular Jewish Israelis. Tel Aviv is the only major city on Earth that is neither a favela nor a Landian IQ shredder.
How do they do it?
A broadly pronatalist culture, with a social expectation that healthy families have at least 3 kids. And underpinning that, a self-conception as a chosen people destined to grow.
So we're talking about a fundamental cultural and spiritual shift--the furthest thing from "fix everything easily". Our best shot is a high-quality media machine. We need great shows, great movies, great influencers. Not crude Christian-Rock type slop but compelling and iconic stories that involve intelligent and successful people having 4, 5, or 6 kids and happy life. Study Felix Kjellberg.
>>4807 > "Eugenics" is a worse than useless term. I agree, but why should euphamisms be necessary on this site? It's a silly rebuttal, I'm talking about the robusticity and usefulness of the underlying concept and technology. > It was about preventing various groups from multiplying. This is absolutely not what is needed today Disagreed. As I said before, I don't believe most of the population in any country, white or black or brown, is optimal for current material conditions. Hell, very little of the planet can be said to have truly adapted to industrialization. > REMIGRATION, a term on the cusp of legitimacy that will carry us to victory. I'm not interested in discussing that in this thread. I'm not interested in go-back-to-x-year concepts in general.
> The new problem is CATASTROPHICALLY LOW FERTILITY Paradoxically, the very highest echelons around the top 0.5-0.1% have actually been shown to nearly reach or even surpass replacement fertility - which makes sense, given they can be said to be the best adapted for this age (in a sense). Undoubtedly sub-groups go beyond even that. My opinion is that subreplacement fertility can be viewed as a positive trend, as long as you are not mired in the mindless-growth-as-moral-good assumptions of the last century which, I believe, have been outmoded by new technology. What I am saying is that the exponential growth of population which served so well in the last century has now become detrimental and, rather than waiting for inevitable turmoil and conflict to cull numbers in horrific atrocity, should be preempted with ethical eugenic policy spread as an ideology which can reasonably compete as a memeplex in the near future.
The substance of your post is equivalent to what would happen if someone broadly ignored everything I said in favor of trying to promote the current X-populist trends. Again, I'm not interested in uninspired GoBackism.
>>4807 Let me give further emphasis: I'm not interested in any line of thought that identifies Haredi Israelis as the ideal model in any aspect. I am not going to "study PewDiePie". I feel like you're about to mention Nigel Farage or something like that. Please engage with what I present rather than derailing it with this.
You're misunderstanding. I'm talking about secular Israelis, which are a productive technologically advanced first-world population. And we absolutely must study them because they're quite literally the only such population with positive fertility.
The Haredim post crazy numbers, TFR over 6, but that doesn't count in the same way the Amish don't count. We need *capable, inventive, high-income urban families* with lots of kids. Once common, now the albino peacock of our age.
>>4810 That's simply incorrect. The Israeli TFR is buoyed by religious subgroups which are largely responsible. Secular, athiest Jewish TFR as a whole are as miserable as any western country. It can be reasonably expected that even if these Haredis had comparable human capital (they don't), any venture towards progress would invariably drain their TFR. Your solution is false. (Note: secular Jewish TFR is actually lower than it appears in this graph, but it demonstrates the disparity neatly)
Okay, much to discuss here on both eugenics and fertility, because both are tightly linked.
Eugenics has been doable since the 1800s. It has been easy since 2015 or so, when the cost of genome sequencing plummeted to something on the order of $1000 or so. And with GWAS/PGS coming online, it has become trivial. True, we cannot force humans to breed as we can livestock or grain. Nevertheless, it is still possible to say, institute a system where every citizen is called up at the age of twelve (much like how any country with conscription does a medical checkup for a draft), has their mouth swabbed, and gets back a message saying: "Here's what we found. This is why we're going to pay for you to have more babies and donate sperm / do nothing / fine you $100,000 if you have more than one kid / give you a vasectomy or tubal litigation. Thanks for your cooperation.". That's the most explicit way of doing things, of course, and it's a super dystopian or statist (and not exactly very liberty-preserving) one, not one I would like personally (or recommend to a ruling party unless they want to get sanctioned by the world). But it would work.
On fertility - fertility is a solved problem. Iran is a conservative theocracy, but it is also an antinatalist one. During the 1980s and 90s it launched an enormous social campaign against overpopulation and pressured people to have fewer children. In retrospect it was remarkably farsighted of them to do so, because we see the kind of problems it's been facing with drought today. Nevertheless, it should be no surprise that Iran has a low TFR. Georgia, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Israel, East Germany, and Romania all solved the fertility crisis, with different methods to boot. You don't need to bring back some crazy 17th century patriarchy or whatever (although that might work too), and these are all examples that happened after the postwar Baby Boom.
>>4813 I think more creative social structures can be found, but I am glad you at least acknowledge that it "works". This is the minimum threshold for conversation, acknowledging that conscious selective breeding is indeed far and away superior to any prior standard. What other ideas do you have for implementation, and what do you think of the supposition that direct genetic edits are unnecessary? I'm suspicious of the true efficacy of the technology, and tried-and-true is never deniable. Also, what do you think the ideal social composition is under current material conditions, and my assertion that the masses necessary for industrialization can and should be phased out?
The mentioned states did not "solve" the fertility crisis, they merely reverted to more stable yet primitive social structures. I must emphasize that this is not and never will be the solution, and it's also not the topic of this thread.
